Cultrual Aspects of the Olympics--Bring on the Food!

Ah the Olympics. A time of world unity and celebration. A time of good sportsmanship and earnest competition. A brief two weeks every two years (Winter games included that is) where the world somehow comes together not only to learn a little bit more about each other, but to essentially “play” with each other. If you think about it objectively, and you set aside all the political banters, power trips, passport-age-changing, crowbar-knee-hacking, and most likely a (un)healthy doses of bribery and performance enhancing drugs, it is really an amazing and kumbaya-ish phenomenon. Why am I talking about the Olympics? Weren't the Beijing games over months ago? Don’t worry. This boils down to food eventually (doesn’t it always?)



My very lovely roommate, Sofie, is an Olympics genius. Well, she is a genius in many other ways as well, but those ways are subject for another post. However, Sofie knows just about everything regarding the Olympics, and she was explaining all the inner-workings of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), how the bid process works, and generally a whole bunch of other cool stuff that I did not know about the Olympic games.

Now, I have never been to any Olympic games before, so this may come of no surprise to other people, but I had no idea that at each Olympics also hosts many arts and cultural events. Apparently, the 2000 games in Sydney showcased incredible art exhibits, including aboriginal art at some of Sydney’s finest and fanciest art galleries, which had never been done before. At the 1996 games in Atlanta, the Atlanta committee managed to bring together EIGHT literature Nobel Laureates in the same room to have a discussion—something that had not occurred before, and has not occurred since.

So, I will link this all back to my opening comments—the Olympics is a time for the rest of the world to not only get to know each other a little better, but especially for the rest of the world to get to know the host city quite a lot better—not only its athletes, but the all the unique and varied aspects of its culture. This culture is often displayed through different means throughout the games, most notably the opening and closing ceremonies (remember those crazy drums in Beijing this summer?), but also the traditional dress of the (normally always women) escorts to the award presenter at each awards ceremony.

Each Olympic games also has its own poster, its own symbol, its own specific torch, and even its own mascot (remember the really awful blue creature named Izzy for the Atlanta games?). All of these serve to promote the culture of the host city (OK, well maybe not the blue creature. Admittedly, there have been some other very bad mascots that really served no cultural purpose, but there were just as many mascots that did relate to the host city’s traditions and identity somehow). I think this is all pretty cool—like I said very kumbaya-ish in the way that the whole world comes together to learn a little more about each other.


However, an idea then hit me—each Olympic city should have an official Olympics games dish! Just think---in Turin, the dish could have been gianduja, that marvelous chocolate and hazelnut combination that Nutella is crafted after. Gianduja is originally from Turin, and therefore it’s no surprise that it is the city’s specialty.

However, my point is that food is over looked at the Olympics as a cultural phenomenon. I could be wrong about this, because like I said, I have never been to any Olympic games, but I think that it would be really cool to have an official Olympic dish representing the host city to go with the torch, the symbol, the poster, and the mascot. Not to mention, think of all the cool cultural food events that could be held in the Olympic village and surrounding areas. I think that one of the best ways to get to know a city or a region or a country is through its food.

What do other people think? Is this a good idea, a bad idea, a silly idea? Has anyone been to the Olympics and experienced the food? Maybe there is a future career for me here: the official Olympics food promoter. I could dig it. That would not be a bad gig.

Whole Foods Vow to “Local” Food—Their definition of “Local”

After Whole Food’s lost billions of dollars due to Michael Pollan’s criticisms of the company in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, John Mackey—Whole Foods CEO—announced that a certain percentage of products in every Whole Foods store would be locally sourced. Well, this is an admirable move for such a large company.

But, what does “local” actually mean? As I discovered with the Treasure Island bell peppers, grocery stores seem to have either a non-existent definition of “local” or a very loose one. Well, I now have an inside connection to Whole Foods, although this person shall remain nameless. And I just learned, from my secret insider source, that Whole Foods does indeed have a definition for “local,” but this definition may surprise you. This is what Whole Foods says on their website:

“Local produce is by definition seasonal. In spring in California, that means artichokes; summer in Michigan means blueberries and autumn in Washington means apples. We value this natural diversity, and each of our 11 regions has its own firm guidelines for using the term ‘local’ in our stores. While only products that have traveled less than a day (7 or fewer hours by car or truck) can even be considered for ‘local’ designation, most stores have established even shorter maximum distances. Ask a team member for your store's definition of ‘local.’”

Well, if you were to ask a team member at one of the stores (the secret source’s store is to also remain secret) you would be told that “local” means a product that was grown OR packaged within the state border of that particular store, or within a 250 mile radius of that store.

Now first off, many states in the US are very large. So, to consider San Francisco Bay Dungeness crab a “local” product in San Diego seems a little odd to me.

Secondly, notice the language here—a product that was grown **OR PACKAGED** within the state border or 250 mile radius. This means that corn grown in Iowa can be trucked or flown to a processing plant in California where it is turned into tortilla chips and sold in a California Whole Foods as a “local” product. Does this seem a little odd to you, or is it just me?

I wonder why each store needs to have its own individual definition of “local”. Why is it not a company wide standard? On one hand, I think that Whole Foods is an admirable company. They treat and pay their workers well, they give great benefits, and the fact that they at least attempt to promote local food is a good thing. However, when I hear things like this definition of local, I start to get a little bitter because I feel deceived as a customer—-especially if I am paying a premium price for these supposedly “local” items. This is why I am a fan of the farmers’ markets. I can support and buy from the local farmers directly. Although, I do like Whole Foods' beer selection, if that is any consolation…


***Image from Whole Foods Website Flickr Account

My wish for the next four years: reinvesting in the profession of skilled farming, part 1

I had mixed feelings all day yesterday regarding all the election hoopla. On one hand, I was excited; I have hope (pardon the now clichéd term). I am proud to say that I am part of history in the making. I was downtown Chicago to see Obama win and give his acceptance speech. The vibe was truly electrifying. However, at the same time, I am anxious and a little cynical. I was telling Ben that I think there are far too many political issues for every person to be knowledgeable and passionate about all of them. That being said, I by no means consider myself an expert on foreign policy, social security, or the state of health care. What I am passionate about, and what I believe can truly make a change across all sectors of society—economy, health, education, and foreign relations included—-is a reform of our food and agricultural policies. But, neither candidate made food any part of his platform. So, I sit and wonder, will this ever become a widely discussed issue? Like I said, I have hope. More and more people are talking about food and the need to support local farms and stop our dependence on industrial agriculture. According to Michael Pollan, the U.S.D.A. now estimates that there are 4,700 farmers’ markets across the country—they are the fastest growing segment of the food market, and that is promising.

What I hope for, however, is that Obama will bring food to light as a major national issue. So, to continue my discussion and response to Michael Pollan’s “Farmer in Chief” article, I personally think that the best suggestion Pollan gives is for the president elect (who we now know is Obama) to name not only the White House chef, but to name an official White House farmer. Pollan recommends that the White House farmer tear out five prime acres of the south facing White House lawn and plant an organic fruit and vegetable garden in its place. Eleanor Roosevelt did almost the same thing in 1943 when she started a Victory Garden movement which helped to feed the nation during World War II. By the end of the war, more than 20 million home gardens supplied 40 percent of the produce consumed in America. That is huge. And this goes to show the power that the example of our nation’s First Family can have. The bottom line is that people often listen best by example.

However, I admit that it is far too much to hope that every American grows his or her own food. That is completely impractical. What is practical is regionalized farming, as I already mentioned. Get a hold of this: Today, the average yield of world agriculture (industrial monocultures) is substantially lower than of modern sustainable farming. According to a University of Michigan study, bringing international crop yields up to today’s organic levels could increase the world’s food supply by 50 percent. Pollan is quick to remind us though that yield is not everything. So much of what we are growing today is not quality produce…it is not even quality food. Rather the crops consist of inedible corn and soy that we then process into low quality, high sugar, and high fat packaged “food” items. Not to mention, forty percent of the world’s grain output is now fed to animals—and cows are not even supposed to eat grain. Cattle actually cannot properly digest the corn that they are fed at industrial feed lots, and therefore, they require artificial hormones and antibiotics in order to survive the feedlot life…but this is the topic for another post.

Pollan explains that well developed polycultures—farms growing multiple type of grain and produce as well as raising multiple species of animals—can produce more food per acre than conventional monocultures of genetically modified corn, soy, and wheat. However, here is the catch. Anyone can buy genetically modified seeds, throw them into thousands of acres and soil, and then douse the plants with herbicides and pesticides—killing everything on the land except for the GMO crop. It is fool proof farming, with no skill involved. Farming a polyculture—what I consider REAL farming—is complicated and needs many hands and a keen mind. It is a highly skilled trade, one that used to be highly respected generations ago, but has gone to the wayside as America became an urban nation of cars and interstate highways. Therefore, what we truly need, what I truly hope for, is a re-investment in the profession of skilled farming. Today, the average American farmer is over the age of 55. We used to be a nation of small farms—the vision that the Founding Fathers, and most notably Thomas Jefferson, built our country upon. Reinvensting in farming as a profession of skill and high respect will not only help to make our food system safer (decentralizing it and making it less vulnerable to attacks or quickly spreading food born illnesses), but it will make our food more nutritious (since a shorter time from field to plate means more nutrients in the food). And perhaps the major advantage to re-investing in skilled farming is the amount of jobs it will create.

That is my two cents for today…this post will be continued tomorrow. So for now, here are some photos from the rally yesterday. It was really an incredible experience. I hope that the next four years live up to the optimism that people are feeling at the moment—I have a good feeling…

A Photo Ethnography of Pilsen

I am briefly pausing my Michael Pollan discussion for the day. Today is too full of politics, excitement, and anticipation for people across the US, and really the entire world. So for today, here is a mini photo-ethnography of one of Chicago's many diverse neighborhoods, Pilsen.

Pilsen originally housed Chicago's Czech community around 1868. Poles and other nationalities, mostly East European, also moved into the area during the early twentieth century. Today however, Pilsen is known as the primary Mexican neighborhood in Chicago (although this may be changing again due to gentrification). Mexican families first moved to Pilsen in the 1950's, and again, a large influx of Mexicans moved into Pilsen when they were displaced from the area where the University of Illinois (UIC) was built in 2000. Some neighborhood people still harbor bitterness about it and many are suspicions that UIC will expand into Pilsen and displace more people. It seems more and more young students or recent graduates are moving to the neighborhood every month. However, Pilsen continues to be a port of entry for many Mexican families from rural Mexico and Texas.

So, here are some images from the neighborhood. Oh, and go and vote...

Michael Pollan’s “Farmer in Chief”—Food as an issue of National Security

OK, so there is no denying that Michael Pollan is probably voting Obama. However, if there is one single issue that is truly bi-partisan in his arguments, it is food as an issue of national security. (I personally think he brings up many issues of bipartisan interest, but I’ll get to that later.) First off, Pollan reminds us that after cars, the food system uses more fossil fuel than any sector of the economy—19 percent to be exact. Now, set aside the issues of global warming and air pollution for a second, and just focus on the argument that both the Republicans and Democrats make: We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as an issue of protecting our nation from foreign terrorists. Now, I am not saying whether or not I agree with this, but I am just pointing out that is a stance that both political parties have made. If the food system uses more fossil fuel than any other part of our economy, except for cars, it seems like a logical starting point for policy reform…But neither candidate mentioned any type of agricultural reform in his speeches.

Next, get a hold of this point: Recently, more than 30 countries have experience food riots. Countries that welcomed the global flood of cheap grain coming from the US (made possible largely by genetically modified varieties of corn, soy, and other crops), suffered the loss of their own farmers and now cannot feed their own populations without relying on Washington and Wall Street (and not to mention the companies holding the patents for GMO crops). Pollan explains that many of these nations are now rushing to rebuild their own agricultural sectors and then will protect them by installing trade barriers. He states, “Expect to hear the phrases, ‘food sovereignty’ and ‘food security’ on the lips of every foreign leader you meet…It is one of the larger paradoxes of our time that the very same food policies that have contributed to overnutrition in the first world are now contributing to undernutrition in the third.”

Basically, countries all over the world are now struggling with food prices and are coming to realize that food is a national security issue. “When a nation looses the ability to substantially feed itself, it is not only at the mercy of global commodity markets but of other governments as well.” This issue does not only include the availability of food—because clearly we are not running low on calories in the U.S.—but it also includes the safety of food. Already, as Americans sat in astonishment this year watching salmonella outbreaks spread across the country, we saw the havoc that a tainted jalapeño pepper from Mexico could wreak on our food system. And last year we witnessed how quickly e coli could spread across the nation due to one batch of poorly cleaned **organic** spinach. These episodes were due to accidents or negligence (whatever you choose to call it), but what if someone or some country decided to deliberately contaminate our food supply? The big industry, centralized nature of our food system is begging for disaster. Pollan tells us Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, stated in a press conference, “I for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do.” One word: SCARY.



Pollan goes on, “This in brief, is the bad news: the food and agriculture policies you’ve inherited—designed to maximize production at all costs and relying on cheap energy to do so—are in shambles, and the need to address the problems they have caused is acute.” He then explains the history behind us agricultural policies leading up to the current moment in history. Basically, the U.S. government, backed by large corporations, developed policies that strangled small farmers and promoted massive industrial monocultures of corn and soy. Why do you think soft drink companies made the switch from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup to sweeten their sodas? Corn and its derivatives are CHEAP, but they are cheap only at the front end. When you start to count the “back door” expenses, which now include health care costs due to obesity and diabetes, you start to see that it is not so cheap after all. But that is also another entire issue to address.



So, what does Pollan suggest? The most obvious answer is to decentralize our food system. Bring back and promote local farms. Don’t make “Locavorism” an issue of righteousness, but rather an issue of safety. This all hinges on the next point of his that I will write about tomorrow: the need to re-invest in farming as a skilled profession. Thomas Jefferson envisioned the United States as a nation of small farms, and we need to make that vision a reality once again.

So my response to this: Amen to that! I think that Pollan hits the nail on the head when he considers local eating an issue of safety. But also, I would like to add something that Pollan leaves out of his article. Regionalizing farming and our food supply will not only make this country a safer place, but also a more communal place to live. I am not saying that everyone needs to have a twenty minute conversation with the farmers at the farmers' markets (as I admittedly do), but to have people across the nation actually know what farm their food is coming from is a huge step toward people being more conscious about the way they eat. The same way that many people are loyal to their local high schools, why cant people be loyal to their local farms? Maybe that vision is idealistic, but it is just a thought. I see regionalized farming as new way to build better communities across the country, and not to mention such a boon for creating more jobs.

But on that note, I will stop for tonight before moving on tomorrow to the issue of re-investing in the profession of farming.

Michael Pollan's "Farmer in Chief"--Keep the discussion rolling

I know that I said I was going to post my response to Michael Pollan’s newest article about two weeks ago, and I am not going to make any excuses other than me being a slacker on my blog lately. I thought to myself this evening, "Hmmm maybe now talking about MP’s new article is not timely anymore," but then I told myself, “Heck yeah this is still timely!” What Pollan has to say about the industrial food system needs to be brought to public attention again and again. There is always a buzz when he brings out a new book or article, and everyone talks about it like mad, but then the discussion is put to the back burner until he writes again. Especially now, the media (and everyone else) is caught up worrying about the economy, and rightfully so. However, I think it is crucial for people to remember that food, health, and the economy are intricately tied together, and Michael Pollan reminds us of this. So, although I am two weeks behind the game in posting this, I will pretend that I delayed my post on purpose so that I can do my part in keeping the food discussion rolling.

So, Michael Pollan speaks out again. In his newest article, Farmer in Chief, which appeared in The New York Times Magazine Food Issue, Pollan writes an open letter to our future president, warning of the issues he is sure to face in coming years regarding the American industrial food system. Pollan’s article really says nothing conceptually new if you are already a follower of his writing; basically, it’s really a condensed version of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food put together. However, I think it's actually quite amazing how clearly he articulates, point by point, steps to be taken in order to fix the food, energy, health, and (some of the) national security problems we face today. I truly admire Michael Pollan’s writing because he is so succinct and so to the point. He draws on such a wealth of research and knowledge but remains accessible to his readers, who (like me) are by no means experts in the science that he refers to.

Pollan draws from nutritional science, sociology, psychology, philosophy, biology, botany, genetics, and still many more complex fields to drive home his main point: the root of the problems surrounding our food system stems from its dependence on fossil fuels. He sums up his argument so well when he states, “We need to wean the American food system off its heavy 20th century diet of fossil fuel and put it back on a diet of contemporary sunshine.” He goes on to say, “Most of the problems our food system faces today are because of its reliance on fossil fuels, and to the extent that our policies wring the oil out of the system and replace it with the energy of the sun, those policies will simultaneously improve the state of our health, our environment, and our security.”

The article is lengthy and dense, but there is no fluff. Pollan packs a whopping load of information into the nine-page piece. For the most part, the policies and changes that he suggests are completely realistic and almost make you think, “Duh, that is so simple.” My only criticism of the article comes toward the end; I think he gets a little too idealistic when he recommends that all food items should have a bar code, that when scanned with your cell phone, would show all the information of how that product was made, what ingredients were in it, etc. He states, “in the case of crops, images of the farm and lists of the agrochemicals used in its production; in the case of meat and dairy, descriptions of the animals’ diets and drug regimen, as well as live video feeds of the CAFO where they live and, yes, the slaughterhouse where they die.” While I think that the idea is admirable, and would be great in a perfect world, the likelihood that this would happen seems slim to be sure. And while I have no problem with being idealistic, I just think that this point of his seems to be out of character with all the other very practical solutions that he offers.

The article is far too long and dense for me to go through it point by point. Because of this, I sincerely recommend that you read it. For the purposes of this response, I have chosen four points made in Pollan’s article that I would like to address: food as an issue of national security; the need to re-invest in the profession of skilled farming; making food a part of public school education; and the ecological preservation of farmland. However, in the process of me writing this response, I am coming to realize that even addressing just these four points is far too long for one blog post. So for tonight, I leave you with this introduction, and the coming days, I will address each of these four points in separate posts. And this way I can keep the food discussion rolling even longer!

And finally, I leave you with a few cool photos (because it is fall and beautiful outside, and because I don't have a photo of Michael Pollan).




(The photos of the dog and the pumpkin were taken by my good friend Ceecee; the leaves, well that not very exciting, yet still pretty picture, was taken by yours truly.)